The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Skomorokh  11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embers (band)[edit]

Embers (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources mentioned on article talk page suggest notability of the actual band. To say nothing of sources mentioned in actual article. Agree that this passes A7 for speedy purposes but seems to fail notability standards for music. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

With the amount of references this article has it should not be deleted. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are to Myspace pages, blogs, a reference to one member's participation in an unrelated film, and a review for another band that mentions this band as the opening act without commenting on them. I don't think the references pass muster by a long shot. More than half the references are actually to a film that is related to the band only because the film includes one member of the band (the film itself has nothing to do with the band). If you remove the references to the film, you are left with 13 references: 5 Myspace, 1 blog, one to an unnotable music review site, another to a separate band's web site, and two to the same issue of Decibel, the content of which hasn't been verified by anybody other than the article's author (the Decibel Web site features a review of another band that mentions Embers by name once, in passing). The article failed a CSD nom (the article credibly claims notability now), and while you are right to point out the number of references, quantity certainly doesn't equal quality, at least not in this case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no legitimate reason cited here for deleting the Wikipedia entry on the band Embers. Embers is real, and the Wikipedia article is factual. The band plays fairly regularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and tours occasionally in other parts of the country. I have seen their most recent CD listed at one time or another on the Amoeba Records website, Amazon.com, and eBay. The band is listed on music websites devoted to heavy metal, for example at http://www.metal-archives.com/ and semi-permanent autonomous zone http://www.spaz.org/taxonomy/term/240 and Metal Archives http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=172603 and their gigs in their home town of Oakland are listed on Oakland.com, for example http://www.oakland.com/embers-e507901

This is a real band, with real people, recording real CDs and playing in real concerts. There is no legitimate reason to delete the Wikipedia article on Embers, and doing so would do a disservice to Wikipedia users who turn to this site to seek information on the band. —Preceding comment added by Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Something being real does not mean that something warrants an article on Wikipedia. See WP:MUSIC. There are clearly defined standards for determining notability on Wikipedia, and they far exceed something being "real." For example, you are a real person, but you do not have an article on Wikipedia about you. There are standards that determine an individual's notability (and preclude an article about you, or me for that matter), just as there are standards that determine a band's notability. The Web sites you list above, in my opinion, do not pass verifiability standards that are required to establish this band's notability, because the only music notability standard that is even being argued in this band's case appears to be press coverage.
I would highly suggest you read the relevant notability standards before throwing out claims like there being "no legitimate reason cited here." My reasons are legitimate and according to the guidelines.
I really hope I'm not coming across like someone with a vendetta against this band, or any band, for that matter. I AfD'd this and am frustrated to see my arguments dismissed out of hand when I actually put in a good amount of time trying to find reliable sources for this article before AfD'ing it. The sources you reference above do not pass verifiability standards, else this article wouldn't have been up for AfD in the first place. Blogs, reviews from anonymous sources and listings for upcoming gigs are not sources that can be used to demonstrate notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand on that note, I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this. Additionally, re-reading my comments above, they may have come across harsher than intended. Was not my intent. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A one-word mention in the tabloid newspaper San Francisco Bay Guardian does not establish notability. A user-generated review page (which doesn't even mention Ember) does not allow Embers to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    I am asking for significant coverage in two reliable sources. As of now, the article contains only unreliable sources (e.g. blogs) or a one word mention in a reliable source.

    I acknowledge that sources do not need to be online. In fact, in many cases, sources cannot be found on the Internet due to the age of the band, in that many publications before the 1980s were not documented online. In this particular case, the band is only five years old. If it is notable, there should be some online coverage about it. The fact that a Google search (with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") — the band's name and its founder — returns only thirty-eight results is a testament to its lack of a significant following and its lack of coverage in reliable sources, and thus its lack of notability. Notable contemporary bands have much more coverage than this, even if some of the coverage is unreliable. A band of the Information Age that lacks an online presence is very likely non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, I wouldn't call the SF Bay Guardian a "tabloid" - it basically set the standard for the "free alternative newspaper" genre (and is probably more reliable than most "local" non-alternative newspapers). And I think you got it flipped - the longer the band's been around the more likely that online sources are available rather than vice versa ("many publications before the 1980's" may not have been documented online... back in the 1980's ... true .... but have been scanned, uploaded in, etc. since then). Especially true for DIY and punk acts which disseminate themselves through printed zines and such. Also, I think that what needs to be taken into account is the OVERALL sourcing - yes, you can nitpick each source provided but the fact that they come from many different venues adds up to notability here.radek (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article for the San Francisco Bay Guardian calls it a tabloid (see the infobox).

    True, the longer the band's been around, the more likely the band will have received coverage in reliable sources. However, those sources may not necessarily be online if they were not scanned. See an example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Pump.

    Embers (band)'s lack of notability is due to its lack of coverage in reliable sources. One word / one sentence mentions in a few local sources do not provide the depth of coverage required by Wikipedia:GNG. If you, or the other proponents of keeping this article, have independent reliable sources that provide at least several paragraphs of coverage about the band, feel free to link to them. I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "OVERALL sourcing" point, I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that without exception every single source is either a blog, a passing reference, or a link to Myspace (or a Decibel "review"). It's not as if by sheer volume of unreliable, trivial sourcing one achieves notability. I could get an article written about myself on here with about one week's work in "Internet PR" by that standard. Apologies for the vague straw man there but I completely disagree with your point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com which is an Aol/Time Warner news site. That's the first citation in the entry. I believe the reviews in Decibel and Profane Existence are more substantial, but these things should be looked at cumulatively relative to the genre of Red and Anarchist Black Metal which is pretty underground by it's nature.noodle 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
This strikes me as disingenuous: "they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com". Perhaps also a matter of semantics, but an off-hand reference does not constitute Embers being "discussed." I reviewed that citation. The source is verifiable. The coverage is dedicated to another band, with two brief mentions of Embers. It reads "Along with Oakland's Embers", and then "Opening was Embers' female-fronted ambient black metal mix of despair, keys, and continuous flow while supporting the band's latest album, the self-released 'Memoria In Aeterna.'" I don't know if you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the coverage in this debate in the hope that nobody will actually read it, or if you think this actually constitutes coverage -of Embers-, but in my view the latter is certainly not the case. I also have no idea what this means: "As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument." Are you suggesting we allow unreliable sourcing because Wikipedia is unreliable? That's a circular argument if I've ever heard one! (Yes, the last point is a trivial one -- just struck me as an odd argument, heh).
Additionally, as the article's author it is generally assumed you are in favor of it not being deleted :). Not that you don't get to vote, I just want to make sure it's clear that your involvement is not independent of bias. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two bands you list above are not notable. I note that the band we are currently debating and one of the two bands you list above have been created by the same user.

    Lesser of Two contains references that are analogous to those in this article — none of these references are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Having done a Google News Archive search about Lesser Than Two, I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. I note that this band is also founded by Steven DeCaprio, who is likewise non-notable per this Google News Archive search, which returns no relevant results.

    Filth (band) currently contains no references and does not appear to be notable per this Google News Archive search.

    Yes, the band has been "mentioned" in several local publications; these mentions are always present in a laundry list of other bands, some of which are notable, most of which are not. There is no indication that Embers (band) passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

    Addendum: I note that your account has 21 edits, the last of which made on January 8, 2010, before you posted to this AfD. As you seem to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, such a WP:MUSIC, do you have another account on Wikipedia? And how did you find out about this discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re the band "Filth" - it's true that that article is unsourced but actually that band is pretty legendary, with members of the band being basically associated in some way with most punk music that came out of Northern California (and beyond) during the 90's (and later). The reason your search is not finding anything is simply because the word "Filth" is such a common word (as is the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers") so any relevant hits are likely to drown in a sea of unrelated noise. But here is one for Filth: [1]radek (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though a discussion about the lack of sources of another band is deviating from the discussion at hand, the San Francisco Weekly source you posted above mentions the band Filth in one sentence. This does not establish notability.

    Instead of searching for sources for other bands, please find some for Embers (band). Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You brought it up (here and at the other AfD). And you're missing the main point - not whether the single sfweekly is sufficient to establish notability or not. Rather that checking Google for "Filth band East-bay" is not going to be a very good gauge of notability here because the word "Filth" - like the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers" (and this is why this is in fact on topic) - is such a common word.radek (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discussed the lack of notability of a band with which Embers performed because Black Kronstadt (talk · contribs) attempted to use it to bolster the notability of Embers.

    My searches for sources (1. Filth band "East Bay" ; 2. "Lesser of Two" band Decaprio ; 3. Embers "Steven DeCaprio") are apt queries for bands with such generic names. If you disagree with this mode of searching for sources, please provide better search terms. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I'm here because the article in question appeared in the access logs of my website as a referring page. I don't make many edits here, since my knowledge of English language is far from perfect. I also have accounts in Russian and Spanish Wikipedias (though not very active too). No wonder that I'm familiar with the criteria of notability and reliability of sources, because I've already had a big discussion about it before (see the talk about the inclusion of RABM section into Black metal article). As for Filth, at a first glance they seem notable to me, because they have released a lot of albums on significant indie labels (Lookout Rec., Springman Rec., and especially Alternative Tentacles - all these labels have a relatively long history and a number of notable bands). Now let's discuss the notability of Lesser of Two, where it's appropriate. Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel review and Embers[edit]

I think the Decibel Magazine coverage for Embers (band) may have been inadvertently misrepresented. The reference is a review in Decibel from the current issue, not an old blog which was never cited as a reference. This is the full quote from the current Decibel review:

"EMBERS Embers

The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. They've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. Bands like this you hold onto for a while. www.myspace.com/embers666"

(There is a photo of the cover of their C.D. next to the review.)noodle 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Here is a link to a page on Decibel's Web site which lists all of the reviews present in the March, 2010 issue: Decibel March reviews. I do not know what the content you are quoting above actually is, but it is not something Decibel considers to be a "review." Nor do I believe it constitutes non-trivial coverage, particularly when one considers that this is the only source that, in my view, -clearly- passes verifiability standards. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is on page 88 in issues number 65. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I don't have a scanner handy. Can someone with a scanner please go to the news stand. Decibel is not an online magazine. Just because Decibel does not list every review they have does not mean its not there. I am rather frustrated with the lack of trust here. Also, Profane Existence Magazine is just as reliable as any other news source. Why do you consider Decibel magazine reliable and not, MRR, Profane Existence, SF Bay Guardian, etc.? Also, no one has spoken to the second element of "former members of other notable music groups". Decibel magazine coverage is just one of a number of reasons to keep this article. noodle 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, put yourself in my shoes. Who do I trust more to tell me what reviews are in Decibel magazine: Decibel.com's list of reviews in Decibel Magazine or "Noodlesteve"? My issue with most of the other coverage (and, really, the Decibel coverage) is its trivial nature. The SFBG coverage seems lacking in credibility to me. Also, read the notability inheritance standard: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Embers needs to be an ensemble with "independently notable musicians." The latter point, the one you think applies to the article, is a point that applies to articles about individual musicians. That is not a reason to keep the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of illustrative example of the last point there, Bono is notable as a member of U2. The New Pornographers, pre-fame, could have been notable because of their incorporation of several notable Canadian musicians. Keanu Reeves' band does not automatically become notable and worthy of an article because Keanu Reeves is a member (although, of course, that Keanu Reeves has a band is so hilarious that the band gets significant non-trivial coverage and becomes notable). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were in your shoes I would realize that Decibel's list of reviews may not be exhaustive and that if I misrepresented the facts I would get banned from wikipedia. At the very least it's a net sum zero game, but you have taken the position of concluding the review doesn't exist when in fact it does. This is irresponsible, and as such you are spreading misinformation. On your other points I believe we agree on the facts, but disagree on our conclusions. We can let the consensus unfold, but I want this to be an informed discussion.
Also, if Bono formed another band I'm sure you would agree it was notable. Well, the founding members of this band were involved in two notable music groups Lesser of Two and Fileds of Shit featuring two members of Filth (band). I guess my point is that we should look at the totality of the circumstances because every music group is different, and standards of notability, no matter how exhaustively defined, are still subjective. I hope you don't believe an artist must be famous in order to be notable because these musical groups are certainly not household names like Bono. javascript:insertTags('noodle 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
Thank you for posting the text of the Decibel review: (1) The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. (2) Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. (3) hey've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. (4) Bands like this you hold onto for a while. This is trivial coverage that contains no substance. Sentence #1 does not tell me anything about the band; it is a generalization about The Bay Area. Neither does sentence #2 which compares the band to two other non-notable local bands. Sentence #3 is the only useful sentence and contains information about the genre. Sentence #4 also provides no context; how do "[b]ands like this hold [on] for a while? The lack of context in this source disqualifies it from being a possible factor of establishing notability.

A band does not inherit notability from non-notable members of marginally notable bands; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Sources by AfD Nominator (Keep that in mind when reading, I'm not wholly independent)[edit]

I'm going to go batty and just do an itemized list of what the sources in the article actually are, because I think people are reading certain names in the sourcing and going "oh, well that sounds reliable." Listing by reference number:

There, I've now gone insane over this AfD. If you're still reading this far, your tolerance for debate is...very well-suited to Wikipedia, go check out WP:ANI, thx. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I created the page I'm not wholly independent either. Also, since we updated the page simultaneously then I guess we're both going batty. I will give my perspective on the aforementioned.
  • 1. Noisecreep. This is an interview with a band that played a show with Embers and they talk about Embers music and why the band decided to play with Embers. Embers is not the sole focus of the article, but there is more than one sentence on them. Three to be precise.
  • 2. SFBG. Embers is mentioned as one of 6 metal bands in the SF Bay Area Featuring women. The article states this is a higher number than other cities, and the existence of Embers is one of a handful of bands supporting that conclusion.
  • 3. MRR. you forgot to mention that the "other band" was Lesser of Two a three piece with two of the three founding members of Embers that has passed notability standards for wikipedia and that Embers is often referred to as ex members of Lesser of Two.
  • 4-15. political media review, imdb, SF Bay Guardian (again, different article), law.com/the Recorder, etc. various reliable publications establishing the political activities of the band establishing their political activism. This is relevant to their status as a Red and Anarchist Black Metal band.
  • 16., 19. The Decibel Review is quoted above. It's only controversial if you want it to be.
  • 17. Heathen Harvest is a webzine. It's just as reliable as a print source. It is not a blog and has Editorial control. There is even an "editor's note" at the bottom of the review showing that submissions are subject to an editorial process. (hmm. you don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online, but now online magazines are unreliable without explanation.)
  • 18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by staff. They do accept music from bands for possible review, but the reviews are controlled by staff. Perhaps you were confused by the "Review Submissions" box. Read a little further and it becomes clear. There is no access to upload content. Profane Existence is a nationally known zine. Your assertions on P.E. are false. I assume you are not a reader of this magazine. noodle 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • I see one recurring theme in your analysis of the sources. The argument for Embers' notability is based off passing mentions in articles about other bands, some of which are notable. The issue with the sources here is that none of them provide significant coverage about this band. This is required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Are there two independent reliable sources that provide significant (several paragraphs of) coverage about this band? Cunard (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a lengthy response to Noodle's thoughts above and have decided to remove most of it. We're going in circles. Noodle and I should both detach ourselves from this AfD at this point, methinks. We're just gumming up the works with endless banter, and I think the above two reference lists are probably the closest either of us will come to a summation.
Only thing I will leave in is this: Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that I'm saying that "online magazines are unreliable without explanation," and also disagree with "I don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online." The first is an absurd blanket statement and I quite clearly never said anything like that, and the second isn't actually true. It's actually very easy to verify printed sources online -- particularly current issues.
  • I'm babbling. Apologies. We certainly agree on one thing: battyness! :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I could have phrased the comment to be less of a blanket statement my point was that I thought it was contradictory for you to deny the existence of the Decibel article (see: WP:AGF), and then without any justification call the webzine Heathen Harvest unreliable. I will also take issue with your assertion earlier that my arguments have been disingenuous. So far you have made three verifiably false statements. First, that the Decibel review didn't exist., second, that the Noisecreep article only had one sentence on Embers (in fact three), and that Profane Existence allows reviews by subscribers. All this along with your attack on Heathen Harvest makes your arguments suspect. To be fair I assume that these were merely oversights on your part, but to call me disingenuous is not in keeping with WP:AGF. So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. I see that Cunard is now attacking the notability of Ludicra, Saros (band) (despite both having wikipedia entries), and has started a deletion discussion on Lesser of Two. I should also note the only person involved in WP:METAL is ScarTissueBloodBlister and they voted to keep. noodle 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • Even if the reviews you listed above were considered reliable, they are not sufficient because one (or two or three) sentence(s) does not pass the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. You are correct. Underground bands which lack coverage in reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia because they fail Wikipedia's core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, your statement that WP:GNG requires "several paragraphs" is incorrect. The guidelines state that you need "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As such a band spontaneously discussing Embers in their own interview is sufficient. I do however appreciate you honesty regarding your tendency towards "underground bands". I'm sure many on wikipedia feel that having more comprehensive music content than you do would be in wikipedia's best interest as a useful resource. I agree that coverage and reliability are important, but I believe the coverage should be within the context of the genre, not some huge breakthrough into mainstream media. I believe both our perspectives fall within a gray area the guidelines don't specifically address (hence AfD). noodle 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Ginsengbomb, what is your problem? You said in a post above that "I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this." I count SEVEN (7) posts you've made subsequent to your promise. You not only "appear overly engaged;" you are demonstrating an obsession with this topic that (a) is not healthy, and (b) destroys such minimal credibility as could be attributed to your little vendetta. Be true to your word, and give it a rest, already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.179.202 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ginsengbomb has policy-based arguments that are valuable additions to the debate. I do not see that in the other participants of the debate. Whilst I do not see the need for Gingsengbomb to abstain from further participation in this debate, the aforementioned user does not wish to get in debates where the participants with the opposing viewpoint engage in unfounded, abrasive accusations of bad faith.

    Instead of discussing the motives of those supporting deletion, please provide examples of reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Bad faith accusations will not allow the article to be retained. Sources will improve the arguments of those voting "keep" and will enable the article to be retained. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of Two[edit]

O.K. so now this AfD has spilled over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two. I don't know how I feel about this move by Cunard. Especially since Cunard was not part of the Lesser of Two editing process and has undercut WikHead's previous tag which was much less drastic than AfD. Is this really appropriate? noodle 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs) [reply]

Well, it seems more like a way of collaterally attacking the Embers article by attacking the notability of associated articles. I see that you are now arguing that Nikt Nic Nie Wie is not a notable label and that Maximumrocknroll, HeartattaCk, Flipside Magazine, and so on are not reliable publications. It just seems like a downward spiral. noodle 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
If your interested in keeping this article (I think of only one reason why this much effort has been spent in it's defence) you should stop attacking people and concentrate on improving the artiucle duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia notability guidlines, WP:FAILN state, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself" Since Cunard never participated in the process of editing either article and proposed AfD of Lesser of Two immediately upon discovering its existence it seems that he is violating this guidline. This is different from the Embers AfD because Ginsengbomb had been involved in the Talk:Embers_(band) from the beginning. It appears that Ginsenbomb followed the guidlines in regard to Embers but Cunard did not in regard to Lesser of Two. Cunard should have done research, made suggestion, and given me a reasonable time to do research before doing the AfD of Lesser of Two. That is my only point. As it stands Cunard only began researching after the AfD which is more competetive than collaborative. Now I am involved in two AfDs while both pages are only two weeks old and addmitadly need some work which is also on my shoulders. This is a legitimate point of process not a personel attack. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Criteria #6 WP:BAND[edit]

I have added numberous references and links to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two. Please take them into consideration when considering criteria #6 of WP:BAND. Embers is in many ways a continuation of Lesser of Two under a different name adding more musicians including Buchanan who was in Fields of Shit with two members of Filth (band). The application of the term "ensemble" in this context is difficult to apply. Lesser of Two had numerous changes in line-up with Nelson and DeCaprio as the only consistent members. Is an ensemble the project or the people in the project? I would have merged the articles, but that would have interfered with it's readability due to the change in music styles as well as the fact that members of Lesser of Two who were less consistent nonetheless went onto play in other note worty groups such as Ballast, Look Back and Laugh, and Pleasant Valley.

Also these are the links to the not so "infamous" Decibel review: File:Decibel.Embers.Review.jpg and File:Decibel.Embers.Cover.JPG javascript:insertTags('noodle 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

Addendum Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two has ended in a decision to Keep. Given the context Embers should pass under criteria #6 as well as criteria #1 of WP:BAND any further improvements can be made with proper editing and research. Also, since Embers is a current active band there is no doubt that any grey area regarding a threshold of said criterea will be passed as Embers continues to tour and release new music. noodle 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Noodle talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More